The cartoons come from:

www.townhall.com/funnies.

If you receive this and you hate it and you don’t want to ever read it no matter what...that is fine; email me back and you will be deleted from my list (which is almost at the maximum anyway).

Previous issues are listed and can be accessed here:

http://kukis.org/page20.html (their contents are described and each issue is linked to) or here:

http://kukis.org/blog/ (this is the online directory they are in)

I attempt to post a new issue each Sunday by 5 or 6 pm central standard time (I sometimes fail at this attempt).

I try to include factual material only, along with my opinions (it should be clear which is which). I make an attempt to include as much of this week’s news as I possibly can. The first set of columns are intentionally designed for a quick read.

I do not accept any advertising nor do I charge for this publication. I write this principally to blow off steam in a nation where its people seemed have collectively lost their minds.

And if you are a believer in Jesus Christ, always remember: We do not struggle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places (Eph. 6:12).

This Week’s Events

President Obama released his second 2012 budget. After inviting several Republicans to his speech, he excoriated Paul Ryan for his submitted budget.

The most important and underreported story of this week is: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa—the BRICS group of fastest growing economies—Thursday signed an agreement to use their own currencies instead of the predominant US dollar in issuing credit or grants to each other. This could be the first step in taking down the dollar as the world’s currency, which will ruin our nation’s economy.

In the spirit of doing things twice, he has apparently organized a bi-partisan deficit commission (yes, this is CR April 2011 that you are reading).

Speaker of the House John Boehner claims that this new budget eliminates the salaries and expenses of the White House czars. The President issued a signing statement which nullified that part of the bargain.

Thousands of TEA party members gathered all over the United States. The Obama Media Complex began by ignoring these groups; then they castigated them; and now they are back to (mostly) ignoring them again. The media represented the Concord, NH TEA party rally as being several hundred, where it is clear, there were far more than that based upon simple photographs of the gathering.

At the Concord rally, former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer; Atlanta talk show host Herman Cain; former Sen. Rick Santorum, of Pennsylvania; and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty all spoke. Attendees texted to vote on their favorite speaker—Herman Cain won with 60%.

Bloggers are suing Huffington Post to get some of that money from the sale of Huffington Post to AOL.

Philadelphia schools are giving condoms to 11-year-old 6^th graders.

Even though California is in a budget crisis of epic proportions, their Senate still found time to pass Mark Leno’s Fair Education Act. This act will see to it that historical contributions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans will be included in the state's textbooks. That is a cost of $50–100/textbook for most of the students of the state. This is what happens when, in a debt crisis, Californians solved it by very nearly electing all the same people they elected before. They were wise enough to hire as their governor the person who signed into law collective bargaining for public employees in the first place (one of the biggest drivers of their budget) instead of a business women who probably would have laid off a lot of state workers and balanced the budget (since she did hire an illegal alien some time ago). Brilliant.

You may recall that GE made a few billion in profits, but paid no taxes. AP reported that GE will return $3.2 billion to the US treasure. USA Today also published this story. It’s a fake story.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110413/ap_on_re_us/us_ge_tax_refund

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-13/ge-tax-hoax-responsibility-claimed-by-activist-group-us-uncut.html

A bill now in the Oregon Legislature would tax electric vehicle operators for each mile they drive on Oregon roads. If approved, it could call for EV drivers to file reports as often as once a month. Of the 3.2 million cars in Oregon, less than 1000 of these are hybrid/plug-in cars. The opportunity of being able to file a report with the government each month should supercharge sales of EV’s in Oregon.

It may be that VegNews, an vegetarian magazine, has had photos of real meat in some of its stories, rather than of fake meat. This is a big scandal among those who care.

Playwrite Theresa Rebeck writes a blasphemous play about Jesus and abortion. Christians will not be rioting in the streets.

Dictator of Cuba, Raul Castro, is now calling for term limits. He is also calling for market reforms, to move Cuba in a capitalistic direction.

Thousands of Muslims protest in the southern Egyptian province of Qina Friday against the appointment of a new Christian governor.

In Pakistan, hundreds of Muslims attacked the Christian village of Khokarki this morning a few miles from the city of Gujranwala (Punjab), forcing its inhabitants to flee. The rumor was, a man and his son had torn pages of the Koran in a bag near the home of two Christians. The two Christians, of course, have been arrested.

In Pakistan forced conversions to Islam, rapes and forced marriages are on the rise. The victims are mostly Hindu and Christian girls.

Say What?

Liberals:

Barack Obama: “We contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, and those with disabilities. We are a better country because of these commitments. I'll go further - we would not be a great country without those commitments.”

Obama: “I don't need another tax cut.” The President lives rent-free with no out-of-pocket costs to be paid toward food, transportation, staff, vacations.

Obama: “Obviously, I have very different views from many in the TEA party.”

“Newswoman” Andrea Mitchell: "Obviously the White House feels very good right now....it's sort of like a tar baby situation where they're loving the fact that the Republicans are now voting on Medicare cuts."

David Plouffe, a senior White House adviser: "I saw Donald Trump kind of rising in the polls. Given his behavior, and the spectacle of the last couple of weeks, I hope he keeps on rising."

Arianna Huffington: “The lawsuit filed Tuesday by Jonathan Tasini is so utterly without merit, and has been so thoroughly eviscerated in the media -- including being ridiculed as the dumbest lawsuit ever. ”

Liberals from the past:

President Obama 2009: "I refuse to leave our children with a debt they cannot repay. We cannot and will not sustain deficits like these without end. . . . We cannot simply spend as we please...that’s why today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office." Nearly every story carried this headline (or it is in the first paragraph): President Obama pledged Monday to cut the nation's $1.3 trillion deficit in half by the end of his first term.

Candidate Obama in 2008 concerning President Bush’s signing statements: "That's not part of his power, but this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he goes along, I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress." President Obama will continue this 150 year tradition of signing statements.

In 2008 Planned Parenthood Illinois CEO Steve Trombley said "I like to think of Planned Parenthood as the LensCrafters of family planning,"

Liberals being civil:

Bill Maher: “[John Kyl is] an evil liar who insults the intelligence of all living things including mushrooms and mold.” Earlier in this same program, Maher claimed that 75 percent of the deficit would be wiped out if Congress and the President just allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire.

Guest Ed Schultz of MSNBC quickly added: "What compares to that? The only thing I could think of would be Sarah Palin about Russia from her backyard, that kind of thing, seeing it." Which she never said.

And, of course, Jonathan Alter claiming that, in proposing to issue Medicare vouchers, Republicans voted "to throw granny into the snow."

Leftists Protesting Tea Party Rally - "I wipe my a** with the American flag."

This was the least offensive thing said on this tape (look at the bottom of the screen for subtitles; language warning):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7l-pEBYeLI

Liberals making sense:

Doug Schoen (on the Obama budget speech): “Rather than seeking to bring the country together this week with his speech on deficit reduction, the president opted instead to propose specific tax increases that he knows will have no hope of winning broad-based support. This is unfortunate, unconstructive, and unhelpful.”

Crosstalk:

President Obama at the GOP House retreat, January 2010: "We're not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterize whatever proposals are put out there as, `Well, you know, that's -- the other party's being irresponsible. The other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens. That the other party is doing X, Y, Z."

 

President Obama today: "One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party's presidential candidates. This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit. And who are those 50 million Americans? Many are someone's grandparents who wouldn't be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down's syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the Americans we'd be telling to fend for themselves."

 

(From Jake Tapper’s column)

Conservatives:

Congressman Joe Walsh (R-illinois): “Christiane, you raise revenue by growing the economy, and everything this president has done the last two years has gone against that. You get taxes and regulations off the backs of businesses so that revenues can increase.”

Paul Ryan on the Obama budget/budget speech: "The President was excessively partisan, dramatically inaccurate, and hopelessly inadequate. Instead of building bridges, the President is poisoning wells."

Ryan: "Exploiting people's emotions of fear, envy, and anxiety is not hope; it's not change. It's partisanship."

Ryan: "So I am sincerely disappointed that the president had a moment when we were putting ideas on the table, trying to engage in a thoughtful dialog to fix this country's economic and fiscal problems, decides to pour on the campaign rhetoric, launch his re-election, and pass partisan broadsides against us, making it that much harder for the two parties to come together with mutual respect of one another to get things done."

Speaker of the House John Boehner: "It is 18 months before the election and the president is out there giving a campaign speech as opposed to saying something serious about how we deal with the debt limit and how we deal with the fiscal crisis that we face. I can't tell you how disappointed I was in what the president had to say."

Donald Trump "[Obama has] been a horrible president. I always said the worst president was Jimmy Carter, guess what? Jimmy Carter goes to second place. Barack Obama has been the worst president ever. [In] the history of this country, Barack Obama is number one."

Bill Kristol: “Paul Ryan is leading and Barack Obama is following.”

Andrew Breitbart: “Class warfare is not American.”

Answer Breitbart: “[Sarah Palin] saw that Barack Obama was not a uniter; he was a community divider.”

Breitbart: “You know what you are seeing on the periphery here? The death of community organizing.”

Michele Bachmann (the quote you probably did not read in context): "Well, I think one thing that we can do, quite simply, is to withhold funding from Planned Parenthood. It's the largest provider of abortion in the United States. They are a billion-dollar industry. As a matter of fact, the head of Planned Parenthood in Illinois said that Planned Parenthood wants to be the Lens Crafters of big abortion." That is much different than I read .

Noelle Nikpour: “Clinton reaped the benefits of Reaganomics.”

Elizabeth MacDonald: “No tax breaks, no tax credits for these new green vehicles; let them stand on their own 4 wheels.”

Dennis Miller: “Here’s how it plays out with liberals; if you mention Christ on this side of the aisle, they bring up Darwin. If you then say, I believe in Darwin’s survival of the fittest, he’ll say you have to be more Christ-like.”

Dennis Miller on Muslim garb: “Who dresses women like this?”

Rush Limbaugh: "Obama would rather increase the number of bureaucrats than promote private sector job growth. He would rather fund more abortions than pay US military members their salaries -- and, by the way, I will never understand why in the world we were afraid of that debate last week."

Rush: "Given the election results of November, where is it written that we can't win a PR fight with a bunch of people who are unwilling to pay the troops but want to make sure abortionists continue to get paid? Elmer Fudd could win that fight."

Rush: "If you are productive, if you work, if you are successful, if you create wealth, if you earn wealth, if you create jobs, then you are Obama's target."

Rush: "Did you see where Obama claims he wants to be anonymous? Not get up early, not have to shave and look presentable. He'd just like to sit in Central Park and tax people as they walk by."

Rush: "Can you imagine what the word 'syllabic' sounds like to people in Rio Linda? What do they think I'm referring to?"

Rush: "We have people who want to fundamentally transform this country and turn it into a welfare state where people will forever vote for big government. Well, what a lousy future for your kids and grandkids.”

Rush: "Unemployment is still at 9%, gasoline's heading up to five bucks, the housing market is a disaster, people can't find work, and the opportunity for prosperity is dwindling. So these Democrats are getting everything they want."

Conservatives from the Past:

Milton Friedman: "Inflation is taxation without legislation."

Conservatives not making any sense:

In an email to chiefs of staff sent Thursday morning, Pete Meachum, Kevin McCarthy's director of member services, forwarded a link to a Weekly Standard post praising the continuing resolution and wrote: "For the handwringers out there, buck up. For those seeking other office please campaign at home, not on the backs of your colleagues." The final 4 words were linked to photos of Hanoi Jane. He apologized in an email sent out an hour later.

Joe Biden Prophecy Watch

FBI Assistant Director of Counter-Terrorism Mark Giuliano said "The governments of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen have drastically changed in the last six months, They are now led by transitional or interim governments, military regimes, or democratic alliances with no established track record on counterterrorism efforts. Al Qaeda thrives in such conditions and countries of weak governance and political instability - countries in which governments may be sympathetic to their campaign of violence."

_______________________________________

It appears as though the UN might be used to declare a statehood for Palestinians.

Must-Watch Media

Inspirational Andrew Breitbart speech (introducing Sarah Palin):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs5VnUNpyCM

Sarah Palin’s TEA party speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg0Co0pMUnk

Frank Luntz with the Republican Freshmen, 2011, 100 days in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0HqNpxqsHo

Hannity interviews Trump (it’s a pretty good interview; this is usually Hannity’s weakest point):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDnBuMz4aME

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dUCWP-NbaI

I don’t recall this Walsh character, but he is a TEA party Congressman from Illinois. He schools Christiane Amanpour on capitalism and her job as a journalist. Video and text:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/04/17/tea-party-congressman-scolds-christiane-amanpour-and-media-not-critic

16 tons of debt by Iowa Hawk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpeIV9X-smg

The cute Hasselbeck-Behar exchange.

http://www.rightwingnewswatch.com/2011/04/13/elisabeth-hasselbeck-silences-joy-behar-by-pointing-out-bush-just-as-well-educated-as-obama/

Good O’Reilly talking points:

http://www.billoreilly.com/video?chartID=556 (Choose 4/11 and 4/12).

More examples of racism from the left:

http://weaselzippers.us/2011/04/17/video-left-taunts-harasses-and-hurls-racial-insults-at-black-man-attending-tea-party-in-portland-oregon/

MSNBC broadcast this?

http://weaselzippers.us/2011/04/15/freshman-rep-joe-walsh-blasts-msm-for-not-questioning-obama%E2%80%99s-budget/

A Little Comedy Relief

Conan O'Brien: "Medical marijuana users are now lobbying for the right to carry firearms. Because no one is a better shot than a stoned old man with glaucoma."

Jay Leno: "Members of Congress will still get paid if there's a shutdown. So it will be just like it is now. We'll be paying them to do nothing."

David Letterman: "The White House says we'll be staying in Libya longer than expected. I didn't see that coming."

Stephen Colbert: "Barack Obama has finally thrown his turban into the ring. So far the Republican field looks like a bunch of guys responding to a Craigslist ad for a free couch."

Short Takes

1) CBO’s only score budgets for 10 years. Why is Obama’s budget for 12?

2) Don’t misunderstand me on the Arianna Huffington deal—she has every right to sell her site, get the best price that she can for it, and then meander off to spend her money. That is wholly legitimate. It just strikes me as funny that, she plays this liberal compassionate card, and yet, when given half a chance to make a buttload of money, without giving so much as a dime to the bloggers who made her site, just strikes me as being a tad bit hypocritical.

3) It appears as if Speaker of the House John Boehner got rolled in the budget showdown. I thought that Harry Reid and Barack Obama were excessively gracious toward Boehner. Maybe this is why.

4) My guess is, Paul Ryan did not deal with Social Security reform because that is the easiest program to reform, and he would allow the President to take a stab at that. Of course, Obama declined.

5) I am so tired of hearing Democrats relive the Bush years, saying, “And Bush fought two wars that he did not pay for, and had the senior drug benefit that was not paid for, and had taxcuts that were not paid for.” First of all, most Democrats agreed with and voted for all of those measures. Secondly, how can you claim to be still concerned about that, when half of Obama’s budget is not paid for?

6) Trump sounds as if he plans to use tariffs in dealing with foreign trade. This is a bad move. Someone needs to ask him what he thought of the use of tariffs during the Great Depression. Then we will get to see what happens when he doesn’t know the answer to something. Bear in mind, regardless of Trump’s many assets, he is still a political novice with limited political knowledge.

7) Have you ever noticed that, whatever number is thrown out there as rich, seems to always be a little above what congressional members make?

8) A cartoonist comes up with an excellent idea for a billboard. Barack Obama saying, “You might want to think about a trade-in.”

By the Numbers

47% of American households do not pay any taxes.

Remember that vicious hate-the-poor budget which Democrats and Republicans finally agreed on in the 11^th hour with $38 billion in deficit cuts for that year? The CBO claims there are only $352 million in deficit cuts.

There are $9.5 trillion of deficits in Obama’s budget (the national debt is about $14.2 trillion). He claims that he will reduce deficit spending by $4 trillion over 12 years.

45% of Americans had a job in 2010.

if you reported Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of $380,354 or over, then you were in the top 1% of all taxpayers in the United States in 2008. According to the IRS, this group of taxpayers (1,399,606 total) paid 38.02% of all federal individual income tax collected in 2008.

The top 5% of all taxpayers (income split on this group was at $159,619 in 2008) paid 58.72% of all federal individual income taxes in 2008.

Top 10% (Income Split Point $113,799) Paid 69.94% of Federal Individual Income Taxes

Top 25% (Income Split Point $67,280) Paid 86.34% of Federal Individual Income Taxes

Top 50% (Income Split Point $33,048) Paid 97.30% of Federal Individual Income Taxes

Bottom 50% (Anyone Making Less Than $33,048) Paid 2.7% of Federal Individual Income Taxes

Atlas Shrugged sells about 500,000 copies each year. According to one source, this is about 10x the number of books sold by Barrack Obama in 2010 (his 2 autobiographical books taken together).

The Nissan Leaf sold 63 cars last week—in all of the United States.

$500,000 to be given from the government to various community organizations to police the Healthcare Law.

744 lbs. of new debt for every baby born this year (if we look at this in terms of the weight of $1 bills).

Polling by the Numbers

Rasmussen:

69% of Americans say we are headed in the wrong direction as a nation

23% say we are headed in the right direction

45% are worried that the federal government will do too much in reacting to the nation's economic problems.

41% are more worried the federal government will not do enough responding to those issues

14% are undecided.

31% think it is at least somewhat likely that the president and congressional Republicans will reach an agreement to significantly cut long-term government spending trends before the 2012 elections.

65% say it is at least somewhat likely that there will not be an agreement reach with real long-term spending cuts before 2012.

POLITICO / George Washington University Battleground Poll

38% percent of respondents said Obama deserves to be reelected, even though a majority of voters hold a favorable view of him on a personal level.

44% said they will vote to oust him, and

13% said they will consider voting for someone else.

Gallup:

41% favorable job approval (tying previous lows)

50% disapprove.

71% of Democrats believe the government should use heavy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth.

In 1939, after ten years of the Great Depression begun, 35% percent of all Americans believed government should do that.

CNN poll:

In general, do you think the Tea Party movement has had a positive effect or a negative effect on the country so far?

Positive 50%

Negative 43%

Mixed (vol.) 2%

No effect (vol.) 1%

No opinion 3%

This is despite a media onslaught of misinformation and demonization of those in the TEA party movement.

Public Policy Polling:

The top favored Republican contenders:

Donald Trump 26%

Mike Huckabee 17%

Mitt Romney 15%

Newt Gingrich 11%

Sarah Palin 8%

Ron Paul 5%,

Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty took 4% each.

A Little Bias

Here’s the headline from the NY Daily News: LensCrafters angry that Michele Bachmann says Planned Parenthood is 'LensCrafters of big abortion' Except that she didn’t really say that, which is admitted to in the story.

_______________________________________

First line in Yahoo story: April 15 was tax day in the United States, and Tea Party radicals used it to stage demonstrations across the country TEA party demonstrations have been among the most peaceful and law-abiding of all demonstrations. They even clean up after themselves, a novel approach. The union groups demonstrating in Madison, WI caused millions of dollars worth of damage to the capitol, which is all but ignored by the media. They are not called union radicals, even though that is exactly what they are. However, I guarantee you, if TEA party members caused any damage, it would be front page news with photographs.

_______________________________________

Rush Limbaugh: "So in one month Obama has given us a budget deficit larger than Bush's annual budget deficit. That is an astonishing fact, and if there was a Republican in the White House,it would have been the top news story of the week."

________________________________________

Will any magazine or newspaper feature President on the front cover or front page in clown-face?

_______________________________________

CNN: High gas prices save lives! Can you imagine a story or graphic like this during Bush’s regime?

Newsweek cover headline: "Why GOP Scrooge Paul Ryan Is a Fraud."

Obama-Speak

shared sacrifice = if you make too much money, the government needs to take more of it by order of BO

tax reform = more taxes for the wealthy

shared prosperity = those who work give their money to those who do not work

shared fiscal responsibility = those who pay the most taxes need to pay higher taxes; those who are not paying much by way of taxes to get more money from the government

spending as related to the tax code = giving tax breaks to those who pay most of the taxes

Investments in whatever = this is actual spending

Language and meaning have been completely turned on their head with those last two.

Questions for Obama

You claimed that you would cut your deficit in half by the end of your first term. Are you willing to work with the Republicans in order to keep this promise?

Was this just some meaningless political promise, like closing Gitmo?

What should be the absolute highest tax rate, no matter what?

Do you realize that if you taxed the income of every person who made over $100,000 at 100%, you could not balance even this year’s budget?

You have some money invested, is that correct, Mr. President [expect a “yes” answer]. When was the last time your borrow money in order to invest it?

Political Chess

The change of language concerning the deficit and budget by the Democrats has been brilliant. Who would have ever thought of classifying tax rate reduction as spending?

_______________________________________

Donald Trump has made quite a big deal out of Obama’s birth certificate. Given all of the discussion on Flopping Aces, among fairly rational people; maybe Trump can get away with this birther issue. Maybe he figures the upside is, people will simple ask, "Why not just release the damn thing; what is he hiding?" That casts suspicion and doubt upon our president. A reasonable political maneuver. You will notice that Trump never gets into the weeds on his issue. So, if Obama reveals the birth certificate, and it is clean, then everyone will wonder, "What was the big deal? Why did he wait so long?" If there is some bit of info on there that is problematic (he is declared a Muslim...and I have no idea if that is found on a birth certificate), then it will cause more suspicion ("What else is he hiding?").

I think that all of this is simply political calculation, Obama figuring that, with the help of the press, he could cast all opposition as birthers, and not deal with the real issues; Trump figured, with very little, he can dig away at the credibility and leadership of Obama; and he is less likely to be diminished for making these statements, given who he is.

Politics is quite fascinating. I admit, it would have never occurred to me that a major candidate would raise this issue and do is so effectively (despite its absolute unimportance at this point).

News Before it Happens

The Obama Media Complex has still not caught on that Donald Trump will be the nominee for the Republican party. Once this becomes clear, they are going to come at him from all sides. Expect every deal he has ever done to be examined (remember, reporters even checked out the library where Palin went to get dirt on her). Expect them to be pouring over clips of Trump’s appearances on television, and expect these to be taken out of context and played with great regularity (if they can find stuff that makes him look bad).

Here’s another future no-brainer. When Trump becomes president, he will change the architecture at the White House dramatically.

 My guess is, he will expand the size of the White House, besides increasing underground offices. This might be the most controversial thing he proposes while president.

This week, attacks on Donald Trump will multiply dramatically in the Obama Media Complex.

Prophecies Fulfilled

Not sure that I predicted this, but nearly every conservative did: now that Paul Ryan has put out a serious budget dealing with entitlement reform, the President and other Democrats have used this opportunity to demagogue all that Ryan has proposed.

2 weeks ago, when he was taking slams from the left and the right in terms of being a serious candidate, I told you that Trump would be the next Republican candidate and the next president. Trump is now head and shoulders above the rest of the candidates.

We are not quite at fulfilling my prophecy about Donald Trump, but the NY Daily News had a picture of Trump on the front in clown-face.

Missing Headlines

Federal budget cuts are minuscule

Bachmann does NOT call Planned Parenthood the LensCrafters of Abortion

Yahoo, AP and USA Today all duped on GE story

Peaceful, well-attended TEA party rallies all over the U.S.

Philadelphia giving condoms to 11-year-olds

First step to end the dollar’s dominance just taken

Come, let us reason together....

A Few Simple Ideas

Limit government spending to a specific percentage of last year’s GDP. 15–18% is ideal. This would be better to be a constitutional amendment. Exceptions for wartime.

_______________________________________

We need a program for government waste, fraud and abuse whistle-blowers. If someone is doing a job which is essentially worthless, and he is able to show this, give him 6 months salary and transfer him to a different job (and end that job). If someone can make a case that an entire department is a waste of taxpayers’ money, give him 2 years salary, lay off the entire department, and end all funding to that department sector.

As an example, as a teacher, I once sat in on a special education meeting of 10 or so teachers, counselors and principals for a severely disabled child. 2 or 3 people worked with this child daily. He was around 18, they were going to extend his time at school until he was 21, and what sort of education was he getting? One teacher proudly told about how he was beginning to understand the difference of shapes (circles, triangles, squares). Essentially at the cost of 2–3 full-time teachers, this was a babysitting service for the parents of that child. I realize that this is a situation where we cannot simply abandon this child; however, pretending that there is some sort of education going on is ridiculous.

_______________________________________

For government shutdowns and debt limit spending, Congress needs to pass a hierarchy of things which will be paid. The bill needs to provide that up to 80% of revenues will be paid (and no more). Near the top would be our veterans; near the bottom would be the Congressmen and President. Below that would be czar salaries. At the end of such a standoff, congress must vote and the president must sign a line-by-line payment to whatever groups were not funded. They should not be automatically funded.

_______________________________________

All tax subsidies and tax breaks must be reaffirmed each and every year. Nothing else can be in this bill. Only yeas or nays on each and every tax break. Yes, I know that would be time consuming. Another good reason to do that.

______________________________________

Some obvious cost-cutting measures: cut the budget of the Departments of Energy, Agriculture and Education by 90%, as none of these departments have really done what they pretend to do.

_______________________________________

Congress needs to put some restrictions upon the czars—they need to be limited in number or by total salary and expenses. A czar not approved by Congress can function in this office for no more than 6 months.

_______________________________________

End all public-private ventures (like FNMA and FHLMC). Privatize all of these organizations and take government control and influence out of the picture entirely.

_______________________________________

Donald Trump’s biggest weakness is his wealth. Many people will not give to him because he is wealthy. However, if he spends his own money on his campaign, he will be accused of buying the presidency. So, here is what he does: he puts up no money of his own, he makes it known that he is willing to take public financing; and he promises that, for every dollar that comes in, he will match that dollar in giving to charity (and he will list the charities on his website.

_______________________________________

We need a public service announcement. The camera pans in close on some dead bodies in Mexico. Narration: “if you take illegal drugs, you pulled the trigger.” Or, show the dead body of someone in Mexico, give a short 20 second bio, and end with, “If you take illegal drugs, you killed _____.” Such public announcements, if done right, would reduce drug usage.

Eat the Rich

by Walter E. Williams

I've often said that I wish there were some humane way to get rid of the rich. If you asked why, I'd answer that getting rid of the rich would save us from distraction by leftist hustlers promoting the politics of envy. Not having the rich to fret over might enable us to better focus our energies on what's in the best interest of the 99.99 percent of the rest of us. Let's look at some facts about the rich laid out by Bill Whittle citing statistics on his RealClearPolitics video "Eat the Rich."

This year, Congress will spend $3.7 trillion dollars. That turns out to be about $10 billion per day. Can we prey upon the rich to cough up the money? According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It's not even yacht and Learjet money. All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there's a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.

How about corporate profits to fill the gap? Fortune 500 companies earn nearly $400 billion in profits. Since leftists think profits are little less than theft and greed, Congress might confiscate these ill-gotten gains so that they can be returned to their rightful owners. Taking corporate profits would keep the government running for another 40 days, but that along with confiscating all income above $250,000 would only get us to the end of June. Congress must search elsewhere.

According to Forbes 400, America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. Congress could confiscate their stocks and bonds, and force them to sell their businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry. The problem is that after fleecing the rich of their income and net worth, and the Fortune 500 corporations of their profits, it would only get us to mid-August. The fact of the matter is there are not enough rich people to come anywhere close to satisfying Congress' voracious spending appetite. They're going to have to go after the non-rich.

From:

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2011/04/13/eat_the_rich

Bill Whittle, “Eat the Rich”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

Why Does Economic Freedom Matter?

by Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D.

and Matthew Spalding, Ph.D.

America's founders knew that liberty is about more than just securing political freedoms. True liberty requires economic freedom-the ability to profit from our own ideas and labor, to work, produce, consume, own, trade, and invest according to our own choices. Thomas Jefferson underscored that point when he observed that "a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement."

This belief in political and economic freedom has had real consequences. Americans have cultivated, amassed, and shared throughout their society the greatest stock of personal and national wealth in history. George Washington predicted no less when he observed that a people "possessed of the spirit of commerce, who see, and who will pursue their advantage, may achieve almost anything."

Why should economic freedom matter to Americans today?

The American Founders always had a keen sense of the importance of economic freedom and the extent to which it was intertwined with political liberty. The American Revolution started as a rebellion against "taxation without representation"-against economic policies over which they had no say. That was the breaking point, the reaction to a long list of unanswered grievances against a far-away government that repeatedly abused their rights.

In light of that "long train of abuses and usurpations," the Declaration of Independence asserted America's liberty by appealing to man's fundamental rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." And the pursuit of happiness the Founders understood to require the protection of property because the right to enjoy the fruit of one's labor is a fundamental tenet of liberty.

"It is evident that the right of acquiring and possessing property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights of man," Supreme Court Justice William Paterson wrote in 1795. "No man would become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labour and industry."[1]

The right to own property protects other freedoms. Congregations own churches where they practice religious freedom. Newspapers own printing presses, which facilitate the freedom of the press. Home ownership contributes to the financial well-being and security of families. Business property produces goods and services to trade in an open market, just as intellectual property protects ideas and innovation. The right to property guarantees the means to live in freedom and practice self-government.

In designing a framework of government for our nation, the Founders knew what they did not want. They rejected European aristocratic systems that favored the established rich and also an all-powerful government that would tax and redistribute wealth according to arbitrary political interests. Neither model secured individual liberty; both subjected people to the whims of others.

Yet they knew too little government caused problems as well. The Articles of Confederation not only failed to provide the means to protect the rights and security of the people of the nascent union but also gave Congress no authority to regulate commerce-to make commerce "regular" in order to ensure Americans had access to what they could not produce themselves. States had imposed competing tariffs that restricted the flow of goods among them while trying to attract foreign trade to their own ports.

Under the Constitution the federal government's two most important functions concern the nation's security (to "provide for the common defence") and the national economy (the power to regulate interstate commerce, tax, and set the national currency). Not only does the Constitution limit the reach of the federal government into the everyday lives of Americans, but in abolishing restrictions on trade among the states[2] it created the world's first modern free trade area. As the young nation expanded its borders across the continent and its population grew, this freedom to trade unleashed opportunities for specialization and exchange, fueling economic growth and prosperity.[3]

History continues to prove the wisdom of the Founders' belief in the unity of both political and economic freedom. "True liberty, by protecting the exertions of talent and industry," Alexander Hamilton argued, "tends more powerfully than any other cause to augment the mass of national wealth."[4] By empowering individuals to pursue their own gain in a market in which goods and services are traded at fair prices and property rights and contracts are enforced, they are also contributing to the economic gain of others. To this day, the United States upholds a dynamic social order in which individuals are free to rise-and to fall-on the road to success.

As a sovereign nation, the responsibility for ensuring Americans can market the fruits of their labor abroad rests with the federal government. The Founders deeply resented the King of England "cutting off our trade with all parts of the World."[5] Commerce was vital to their way of life, and as Benjamin Franklin wrote in the Principles of Trade in 1774, "No nation was ever ruined by trade."

Then, as now, some have wanted government to impose regulations, tariffs, taxes, or other interventions to protect and advantage certain activities and to minimize economic risk. That might have made sense at the start of the country. Yet, thankfully, there always have been stronger voices who knew that such policies would wind up strangling the creativity, productivity, competition, and access to markets that people need to flourish and prosper and economies need to grow and remain strong.

The challenge for America's leaders has always been to keep government from getting too burdensome and too involved in economic markets. That's why throughout our history, most American leaders have agreed with the Founders that the greatest gain for each comes from free markets and free trade for all.

Andrew Jackson resolved trade disputes with France, Denmark, Portugal, and Spain to America's advantage. He signed a trade agreement with Great Britain that reopened trade with the British West Indies, and the first trade agreement with an Asian nation, Siam. He also signed trade agreements with Russia, Spain, and Turkey. Overall, under Jackson, Americans saw a 75 percent growth in exporting and 250 percent growth in imports.

The free trade tradition was carried on by presidents like James Polk, who reduced tariffs, and Ronald Reagan, who proposed a North American free trade area and signed a free trade agreement with Canada. His vision became reality when Bill Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993-creating the world's largest free trade area and increasing trade in the hemisphere from $297 billion in 1993 to almost $1 trillion in 2007.

What these presidents understood is that economic freedom matters. Tariffs make the cost of imports higher and have a dampening effect on competition, which would otherwise help bring prices down. But it means much more than opening trade by reducing tariffs, as the annual Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom documents. If economic policies cause prices to rise, the value of the dollar in our pockets declines, and with it our ability to buy and do what we want; it cheapens our labor. If government imposes additional costs on consumers and businesses through higher taxes, fees, and regulation, or restricts the fair use of our property, economic freedom falls.

The loss of economic freedom hits the poor especially hard. Over the past decade, countries that increased economic freedom saw poverty levels fall almost twice as much as countries that lost freedom. People in countries with more economic freedom were not only happier, but more prosperous. The correlation between economic freedom and prosperity is stunningly high, with more freedom translating to greater per capita income.[6]

Economic freedom-free markets at home and free trade in the world-is essential to human liberty. Without it, people are unable to improve the conditions under which they and their posterity will live. Worse, they are vulnerable to oppression, especially by the state. We only need recall the human toll of slavery and Soviet Communism to understand what Friedrich Hayek meant when he noted that "to be controlled in our economic pursuits means to be always controlled," and that if all economic decisions require the approval of government, then "we should really be controlled in everything." [8] In the end, liberty is whole and universal: The world will not be free politically if it is not free economically.

America's openness to trade has always fueled its economic expansion. Over the past 50 years, the United States led the way in expanding free trade worldwide. For the most part, we have taken George Washington's advice to "hold an equal and impartial hand ... diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of Commerce."[9] Yet today, as more and more nations have decided to follow that lead, political leaders in the United States have chosen to intervene more directly in the economy and impose heavy regulations that put American businesses at a competitive disadvantage.

If America's commitment to economic freedom-not only by its policies but by its leadership in the world-continues to flag, it neglects its national interests and betrays its core principles. In doing so, it also jeopardizes the security, prosperity and liberty not only of the United States but much of the world as well.

Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D., is Vice President of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies and Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., is Director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

From:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/04/Why-Does-Economic-Freedom-Matter

Obama passes wind for clean energy

By: DrJohn

Last week Barack Obama visited a wind turbine plant in Pennsylvania touting his goals for clean and secure energy. There are times I simply cannot fathom what passes for thought in Obama's mind and this was one of them. While there, he said

Less dependent on foreign oil.

In Obamaworld we will become less dependent on foreign oil by shutting down domestic exploration and promising to be Brazil's best oil customer.

Or perhaps we can become less dependent on foreign oil by purchasing hybrid vans, or other imaginary vehicles. I understand that such vehicles are now available in the 57th state- Barackofornia.

One energy source that is going to disappoint Obama mightily is wind. Over at WUWT we learn that wind power in Britain is somewhere between highly unreliable and totally useless.

Among the findings from the John Muir Trust:

As theblogprof points out, windmill farms are springing up too often and in poorly considered locations because of heavy government subsidies and not because they make any economic or energy sense.

As the above point out, neither wind nor solar are the answer, but rather are supplemental only.

This is only one more unicorn in the Barack Obama Arsenal of Imaginary Solutions.

[some of the comments included]

From:

http://floppingaces.net/2011/04/12/obama-passes-wind-for-clean-energy-reader-post/

I Voted Democrat because...

by Trey Wagner

1. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of ...4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

2. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

3. I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

4. I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.

5. I voted Democrat because I think that it's better to pay billions to people who hate us for their oil, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle or gopher.

From Joe Pags Facebook page

FactChecking Obama's Budget Speech

The president went too far in his critique of the House Republicans' deficit-reduction plan.

Summary

President Barack Obama misrepresented the House Republicans' budget plan at times and exaggerated its impact on U.S. residents during an April 13 speech on deficit reduction.

•                                                                                                                 Obama claimed the Republicans' "Path to Prosperity" plan would cause "up to 50 million Americans . to lose their health insurance." But that worst-case figure is based in part on speculation and assumptions.

•                                                                                                                 He said the GOP plan would replace Medicare with "a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry." That's an exaggeration. Nothing would change for those 55 and older. Those younger would get federal subsidies to buy private insurance from a Medicare exchange set up by the government.

•He said "poor children," "children with autism" and "kids with disabilities" would be left "to fend for themselves." That, too, is an exaggeration. The GOP says states would have "freedom and flexibility to tailor a Medicaid program that fits the needs of their unique populations." It doesn't bar states from covering those children.

•He repeated a deceptive talking point that the new health care law will reduce the deficit by $1 trillion. That's the Democrats' own estimate over a 20-year period. The Congressional Budget Office pegged the deficit savings at $210 billion over 10 years and warned that estimates beyond a decade are "more and more uncertain."

•He falsely claimed that making the Bush tax cuts permanent would give away "$1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire." That figure - which is actually $807 billion over 10 years - refers to tax cuts for individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000, not just millionaires and billionaires.

•He said the tax burden on the wealthy is the lowest it has been in 50 years. But the most recent nonpartisan congressional analysis showed that the average federal tax rate for high-income taxpayers was lower in 1986.

For more about the president's deficit-reduction speech, please read our Analysis section.

Analysis

This week, President Barack Obama laid out his ideas on how to curb the growing deficit over the next decade and more - and he spent much of the afternoon speech at George Washington University criticizing a deficit-reduction plan, called "Path to Prosperity," released by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. But his critique strayed at times from the facts.

Medicaid Assumptions

The president made several claims about the Republicans' proposal for Medicare, Medicaid and the health care law. Obama claimed that the plan would cause "up to 50 million Americans . to lose their health insurance." But that figure is partly based on speculation and assumptions.

The White House told us that 34 million of the 50 million people the president referenced would be covered under the new health care law, but Ryan's proposal largely repeals the legislation. That means those persons wouldn't be covered. Technically, those currently uninsured individuals don't have insurance to lose, but certainly the Republican plan would be expected to cover tens of millions fewer than current law. What about the other 16 million?

To come up with that, the administration speculated on what states might do when faced with fewer federal Medicaid funds, as the Republican proposal stipulates. Under the Ryan plan, the federal government would spend an estimated $150 billion less on Medicaid in 2021. The administration figures that's a 19 percent reduction in Medicaid spending, which, the administration assumes, would lead the states to spend less on Medicaid. It then assumes that there would be a corresponding 19 percent reduction in enrollment in 2021, which it says would be 15 million people.

That's a whole lot of assuming.

The Ryan proposal would give states block grants - in lieu of the current federal matching funds - which would go up each year based on population and the consumer price index for urban consumers. It also eliminates money for acute care services for elderly Medicaid recipients. States would get less money than they are expected to under current law, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says they'll have to make tough budgeting decisions. But that's a far cry from saying 15 million Medicaid enrollees won't be covered.

CBO says the plan would reduce federal Medicaid spending by 35 percent in 2022 and more in future years. It says states "could" limit eligibility, but that measure is among several other possibilities to make up for the loss of federal dollars. And the CBO adds that "to some extent" rising health care costs "would cause states to implement such changes anyway."

It's anyone's guess as to how states would react in 10 years to Ryan's proposal. The same goes for how states will cope with rising health costs. The administration's 15 million figure is speculation, and so are Obama's claims that "poor children," "children with autism" or "kids with disabilities" would be left "to fend for themselves." The Ryan plan in no way says that states don't have to cover such individuals. Instead it says that states would have "freedom and flexibility to tailor a Medicaid program that fits the needs of their unique populations."

Medicare Exaggerations

Obama also had plenty to say about the GOP plan's impact on Medicare. He said it "ends Medicare as we know it" and went on to characterize it as "a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs."

Saying the plan throws the elderly to "the mercy of the insurance industry" is an exaggeration and ignores elements of the plan that require insurance companies to cover all seniors and to charge the same rate based on age. The Ryan plan is a fundamental change in the way Medicare works, however.

Here's what Ryan proposes:

•                                                                                                                 For those 55 or older by the end of this year, Medicare stays the same. They can remain on the traditional Medicare program as it is.

•                                                                                                                 Starting in 2022, the system would change. New enrollees would get what Ryan calls "a premium-support payment" to help them purchase private insurance on a new Medicare exchange. Carriers participating in the exchange would have to offer certain standard benefits, cover anyone who applied, and would be required to charge the same rate for those of the same age.

•                                                                                                                 The average "premium-support payment" would be $8,000 for 65-year-olds in 2022, which is about the same amount CBO projects the government will spend per 65-year-old that year. Upper-income folks won't get the full amount - the top 8 percent in terms of income distribution would have to pay a greater percentage of their premium costs.

•                                                                                                                 Obama calls this a "shrinking benefit," but Ryan's plan calls for the government payments to increase based on increasing age of the recipient and the CPI-U (consumer price index for all urban consumers). The plan would, however, require beneficiaries to pay more for their health care than under current law.

•                                                                                                                 The government would also set up medical savings accounts for certain low-income individuals, with the first annual federal contribution at $7,800.

•                                                                                                                 The Ryan plan also gradually increases eligibility for Medicare to age 67 by 2033.

Obama calls the Medicare payment a "voucher," while Ryan maintains in his proposal that "[t]his is not a voucher program, but rather a premium-support model." We'll steer clear of a semantic debate between politicians. It's accurate to say this is a government subsidy that would be paid directly to the insurance plan that a senior chooses.

Obama went on to say that seniors wouldn't get "guaranteed health care" and if the "voucher isn't worth enough to buy the insurance that's available in the open marketplace, well, tough luck -- you're on your own."

It's false to say seniors would be in the "open marketplace." Instead, they would buy coverage through the Medicare exchange Ryan envisions. And as we said, the private insurance companies in the exchange would be required to cover any eligible senior who wanted insurance.

It is true, according to a CBO analysis, that seniors would pay more under the Ryan plan than under current law. The Ryan plan saves the government money but shifts a greater financial responsibility to Medicare beneficiaries. CBO said:

Obama claimed that 10 years from now, 65-year-olds would "have to pay nearly $6,400 more" for Medicare coverage. That's an accurate reflection of what CBO estimated. (See Figure 1, and calculate the beneficiary's costs based on an $8,000 government contribution in 2022.)

The president implied that not everyone would be able to afford insurance under this system, and CBO does say that because of the added costs "some individuals would therefore choose not to purchase insurance." It makes no estimate of how many would forego coverage.

Of course, Obama agrees that the government has to find ways to curb Medicare spending. But it's unclear what exactly those methods would be. He said: "We will slow the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services that seniors need." He also called for saving money by getting generic drugs on the market more quickly and implementing "new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results."

Trillion-dollar Uncertainty

Obama also repeated a deceptive talking point about his health care law, saying: "Already, the reforms we passed in the health care law will reduce our deficit by $1 trillion." As we wrote earlier this year, that's a rough calculation based on a 20-year projection from CBO, a projection it says is uncertain. The 10-year deficit reduction figure was $230 billion, updated to $210 billion in February.

We checked this claim when Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi used a higher number, saying the health care law will "save taxpayers $1.3 trillion" The Democratic staff of the Ways and Means Committee calculated that long-term figure by combining CBO's 10-year deficit reduction estimate and a much looser estimate for the subsequent decade. CBO said that the law and the reconciliation legislation would lower the deficit in the second 10-year period by "a broad range around one-half percent of gross domestic product." But CBO didn't give a specific figure. Instead, it said the estimate was uncertain.

In March testimony before Congress, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf said: "CBO does not generally provide cost estimates beyond the 10-year projection period," and noted that the "impact, however, becomes more and more uncertain the farther into the future one projects." He called the second decade estimate "a rough outlook."

$1 Trillion in Tax Cuts for `Millionaires and Billionaires'?

The president also spent time in his speech discussing the need to raise taxes and promised to resist a Republican plan to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. (They're scheduled to expire at the end of 2012.) He said making the Bush tax cuts permanent would provide $1 trillion in tax cuts for "millionaires and billionaires." That's not true. By the president's own figures, the cuts are worth an estimated $807 billion over 10 years for all individual taxpayers earning more than $200,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000 - not just those earning more than $1 million.

In December, the president and Republican leaders agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years for all taxpayers. But in his fiscal year 2012 budget proposal, Obama calls for allowing those tax cuts to expire at the end of 2012, as scheduled, for individuals making more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000. The budget proposal also would restore the estate and gift taxes to their 2009 levels.

The president's budget (table S-2) says the tax proposals would result in $709 billion in additional income-tax revenue and $98 billion in additional estate and gift taxes from 2012 to 2021. That's a total of $807 billion over 10 years, not $1 trillion, and not all of it would come from "every millionaire and billionaire in our society."

How much are the Bush tax cuts worth to millionaires? They're worth an estimated $32.7 billion this year alone, according to an analysis the Joint Committee on Taxation produced during last year's debate. That's a lot of money, for sure, and without exaggeration.

A $200,000 Tax Cut for the President?

Obama underestimated, however, the impact of the Bush tax cuts on his own finances.

The president said the Republicans - by proposing to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for all taxpayers regardless of income - "want to give people like me a $200,000 tax cut." That raised a curious question: How much did the Bush tax cuts save the Obamas? To find the answer, we took the president's 2009 tax returns and plugged his information into the Tax Policy Center's tax calculator, which allows you to compare your federal tax liability with and without the Bush tax cuts.

The Obamas had a 2009 adjusted gross income of $5,505,409, mostly from the sales of his books. They paid nearly $1.8 million in federal taxes. The tax calculator showed the Obamas would have paid about $300,000 more in taxes without the Bush tax cuts. So we'll give a pass to the president on this one - even though it sounds like he already got a big break.

A Taxing Burden

Obama also argued that the "wealthy" could afford to pay more in taxes since their "tax burden" is the lowest it has been in 50 years. But it depends what measure one uses. The CBO's most recent analysis showed that the average federal tax rate for high-income taxpayers was its lowest in 1986 during the Reagan administration.

The White House based that claim on its own analysis of 2005 tax data for the 2010 Economic Report of the President. It calculated the effective tax rate of individuals making more than $250,000 a year and those making more than $2 million, by dividing the amount of income by the amount paid in federal income and payroll taxes. The figures were also adjusted for wage growth, the report said.

"This analysis suggests that the effective tax rates that applied to high-income taxpayers reached their lowest levels in at least half a century in 2008," the report said.

But the White House's own analysis showed a similar tax burden in the late 1980s. Here is the administration's graphic representation of the effective tax rate for those income groups:

It does show those making more than $250,000 and those earning more than $2 million paying a lower effective tax rate in 2008 than in 1960. The decline was much greater for those making more than $2 million. But both groups of high-income earners were paying just about the same rate in the late 1980s as they were in 2008, according to the White House graph. The rates increased during the 1990s and began to fall again during the early years of the last decade. Update, April 15: We originally said that the rates in the late '80s were "similar or possibly lower" than they are today. The Office of Management and Budget later provided specific figures that show the tax rates in the '80s were similar. The OMB figures show that those earning more than $2 million paid the same rate (25 percent) in 2008 as they did in 1988, 1989 and 1990, and those making more than $250,000 paid 25 percent - the same rate since 2003. The latter group had a rate of 26 percent in the late '80s.

The administration isn't alone in estimating effective tax rates, though. The CBO, in a June 2010 report, provided statistics for average federal taxes paid by income group from 1979 to 2007. The CBO found that high-income taxpayers had the lowest tax burden in 1986. (The CBO analysis included the four largest sources of government revenue - individual income taxes, payroll taxes, corporate income taxes and excise taxes. It calculated the average tax rates by dividing taxes paid by "comprehensive household income," which includes all cash income plus additional sources of income such as Medicare benefits and food stamps.)

According to the CBO, the top 1 percent of all households - those making at least $352,900 - paid a total average federal tax rate of 29.5 percent in 2007. But in 1986, they paid a full 4 percentage points less, 25.5 percent. Taxpayers in the top 5 percent (who earn at least $141,900) and 10 percent (at least $102,900) also paid lower rates in 1986.

The top 5 percent had a total average federal tax rate of 27.9 percent in 2007, but just 24.6 percent in 1986. The rates for the top 10 percent: 26.7 percent in 2007 and 24.3 percent in 1986.

- by Lori Robertson, Eugene Kiely and D'Angelo Gore

From:

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/factcheckin g-obamas-budget-speech/

The Beck Factor

By Bill O'Reilly

My pal Glenn Beck is leaving his program on the Fox News Channel later this year. This has caused great joy among some uber-liberals who object to free speech as well as to anything Beck. The Media Matters outfit took just seconds to misstate why Beck is changing venues, but what else is new? George Soros partially funds Media Matters, so why would the website ever say anything truthful when far left propaganda is so much easier to dish?

When you get past all the rubbish, Glenn Beck is really Norm, the guy on the sitcom "Cheers." He sits on a symbolic barstool and vents. He sees bad things happening to his country and objects. Because his rap is so interesting, millions of Americans want to hear it. So what on earth is wrong with that?

If you just got off the plane from Mongolia and dialed into the left-wing U.S. media, you might think Glenn Beck is the anti-Christ. The hue and cry about Beck is downright hysterical. Why do they care? Beck isn't an elected official; he's not even a journalist. He's just a guy with an opinion. So what's the beef?

Well, again, it goes to free speech. Many hardcore ideologues in both camps simply do not want to hear opinions other than their own. And if someone is successfully bloviating views that differ from their orthodoxy, they go ballistic. And Glenn Beck is certainly successful.

Remember, he's the guy who exposed Obama's "green jobs czar," Van Jones, as a communist sympathizer and 9/11 truther. Jones said a quick goodbye before the White House door hit him in the butt. Beck also drove a campaign against the ACORN group that was taking taxpayer dollars and using them to commit voter fraud in some places. Subsequently, Congress defunded ACORN.

These are big accomplishments, the kinds of things that can get powerful people upset. Thus, Beck became a target, an object of derision and hatred for some in the media.

But it is Glenn Beck who will have the last laugh. His media empire is now so expansive, he doesn't need the daily grind of TV news analysis. The guy has a hot website, The Blaze, has a syndicated radio program, even has an imprint at a prestigious publishing house. Plus, his speaking fees could considerably reduce the national debt.

So three cheers for Glenn Beck, aka Norm-a regular American who loves his country and is willing to suffer the slings and arrows to make his voice heard. We'll miss seeing him as much on Fox News, but his voice will still resonate throughout the media. And, to those who respect Glenn Beck, that's all that really matters.

From:

http://billoreilly.com/column?pid=31711

Comparing students of union schools in Wisconsin to students in non-union schools in Texas:

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/03/longhorns-17-badgers-1.html

Bureau of Labor Statistics; see how your state is doing:

http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.tx.htm

Here is an interesting interactive map. Red lines mean people are moving away; black lines means that people are moving to.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/04/migration-moving-wealthy-interactive-counties-map.html?preload=26163

Fiscal facts from the Tax Foundation

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/250.html

Of course, what seems obvious to us appears as right-wing science fiction to many California legislators and pundits. They claim that serious reform of the tax code is unrealistic, that a large state has many duties to fulfill, and that it is irresponsible to call for a return to a 19th century view of the role of government. This is a quote from Texas versus California (put out by ALEC):

http://www.alec.org/am/pdf/tax/09RSPS/09RSPS_chap2.pdf

What percentage of people work in your state? Interactive map:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2011-04-13-more-americans-leave-labor-force.htm

Arianna Huffington excoriating those bloggers who are suing her (actually, one blogger in particular):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/huffington-post-lawsuit_b_848942.html

Playboy article; Who does James O’Keefe think he is?

http://www.playboy.com/articles/who-does-james-okeefe-think-he-is/index.html?page=1

If you need to brag on Texas to your friends, send them this link. Nice graphics:

http://www.governor.state.tx.us/files/ecodev/State_to_State.pdf

Bill Maher is either uninformed or lying about what he is aware of. Unfortunately, Michael Steele did not do a good enough job setting him straight:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/04/16/maher-democrats-didnt-use-any-violent-rhetoric-towards-republicans-du

Usually, a law is passed, and then funding is passed separately to put that law into effect. However, there is $105 billion built into the implementation of Obamacare.

http://townhall.com/columnists/terryjeffrey/2011/03/16/congress_must_stop_$1055_billion_in_automatic_obamacare_spending/page/full/

The UN warned us that there would be 50 million refugees due to climate change. Oops! They have scrubbed this prediction from their website.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/04/16/un-scrubs-50-million-global-warming-refugees-page-website

The London Taliban targets women and gays with their imposition of sharia law:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377780/London-Taliban-targeting-women-gays-bid-impose-sharia-law.html

Additional Sources

BRICS meeting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/china-other-developing-brics-nations-seek-change-in-global-economic-order/2011/04/14/AFarMgdD_story.html

http://engforum.pravda.ru/index.php?/topic/231573-brics-meeting-in-sanya-china-local-currencies-to-replace-dollar/

Free condom site in Philadelphia (for children as young as 11). Includes a condom map.

http://www.takecontrolphilly.org/

Deliberately misleading headline on Michele Bachmann:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/04/14/2011-04-14_lenscrafters_angry_that_michele_bachmann_says_planned_parenthood_is_lenscrafters.html

More Maher misinformation:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/04/16/bill-maher-ending-bush-tax-cuts-would-solve-75-budget-deficit

See, I Told You So: Obama Uses Budget Deal to Set Up Tax Hikes

RUSH: See, I Told You So. This is me on the program yesterday. This is actually Monday. I did. It was Monday I predicted this, and this is Thursday. Yeah. Four days ago.

RUSH ARCHIVE: Now, it's certainly in their interests, the Democrats and the media, to pretend that we have just experienced Draconian cuts. That's what gets me. They are acting like this $38 billion is the equivalent of one trillion. They're acting like the federal budget has just been iced. That's what's wrong with this. There's no sense of proportion. They are acting like the bottom's been cut out of this. They are acting like their aorta has been split open, and it hasn't. This isn't even a stubbed toe and they're acting like they got stabbed in the heart, my friends. So on Wednesday, Obama's giving his big speech here, and you know what he's gonna say? Among other things Obama's going to say, (imitating Obama) "Okay, we've listened to Republicans and we've cut spending." He's gonna talk about how monumental the cuts are here. He's even gonna take credit. He's gonna say, "I was there. So now it's time for compromise." Hello, tax increases.

RUSH: That's right, predicted that on Monday, tax cuts following these "Draconian cuts," and that's how they portrayed them.

A Radical Suggests Self-Reliance

RUSH: Patrick in Posen, Michigan, I'm glad you waited. You're up next, sir. Hello.

CALLER: Hello, Rush. Glad to talk to you.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: I'm 59 years old. Right now today, I would gladly give up any claims to my future Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, if the government in turn would stop taxing me on that stuff today so every penny I make from this going forward is all mine to keep, not theirs.

RUSH: Well, here's the problem. Are you gonna also pledge to take care of your retirement?

CALLER: That is correct.

RUSH: You are. Okay, what happens when you don't?

CALLER: I guess I'll become somebody living in the streets.

RUSH: No, because, you see, our society is not gonna let that happen.

CALLER: Well... (chuckles)

RUSH: We're a compassionate society.

CALLER: I understand what you're saying there, but perhaps we have to take responsibility, and change our society. Because what we're doing today isn't really gonna be working ahead in another 50 years, that's for darn sure.

RUSH: John, do you really realize how revolutionary an idea you're proposing? You're actually suggesting...

CALLER: Oh, many people have suggested before. Give us the opt-out of Social Security. Let us take care of ourselves. It's been said before.

RUSH: Do you realize how radical that is? You are suggesting -- you are asking, in fact -- for the opportunity to take care of yourself?

CALLER: That is correct.

RUSH: Well, easy for you to say.

CALLER: Yeah, that's true, but, well, somebody's gotta do it. (chuckles)

RUSH: That's what people always say to me when I suggest the homeless go get a job: "Well, easy for you to say." (interruption) Well, I know. Snerdley is arguing with me here about we let people live in the streets. Democrat regimes do allow people to live in the streets. They kick 'em out of the shelters, kick 'em out of the institutions and move 'em into the gutters. Democrat regimes do. It's called "fairness," but as a compassionate society, we don't do it. I plan on taking care of myself. (interruption) Don't smirk, Snerdley! It has been a career objective. I get really bummed out. Okay, call me lucky, I don't care. If you want to call me lucky, fine, but I have achieved it. By the way, who knows? I could lose everything at some point. You never know.

But my career objective has been that I don't want to have to depend on anybody or anything I need, and most of what I want -- certainly not what I want -- and I've been able to pull it off. I mention this to people and they say, "Well, yeah, you're not very typical." Okay, maybe not very typical, but why impugn that? "Well, easy for you! You can do it!" Yeah, but it's been a long road. This guy wants to take care of himself if we'll let him opt out. But, you see, here's the thing, Patrick. As far as the left is concerned it really isn't about you taking care of yourself, otherwise they'd let you out. If that's what this were all about -- if this were really about putting less strain on government agencies, government resources -- they'd gladly let you opt out. But, no, it's not about that. It's about control and the transfer of wealth, the redistribution of income. They are not about... And to every person that becomes self-sufficient and self-reliant is a huge threat to the Democrat Party. They're not going to let you do it.

Whose Money Is It Anyway?

RUSH: Here's Brian in Corpus Christi, Texas. Welcome to the EIB Network. Great to have you here.

CALLER: How you doing, Rush?

RUSH: Very good, sir. Thanks very, very much.

CALLER: All right man, I was just calling 'cause I wondered how you get to the conclusion that by cutting taxes that it isn't like a loft to our government because X-amount of tax would bring in that much income, whenever you cut the tax you cut the income, don't you?

RUSH: Well, only if you presume that the money belongs to Washington first. I don't presume that. I presume that the money I make belongs to me first. I don't think --

CALLER: I understand how it belongs to you first, yeah, but we do owe, you know, X-amount according to the Constitution and how much we gotta pay in taxes. If you cut that rate the government loses that amount of money, doesn't it?

RUSH: The Constitution's got nothing to do with how much we pay in taxes.

CALLER: Nothing to do with it?

RUSH: No.

CALLER: All right. Okay, another question. Sorry about that. I got a question. Our gas right now in Corpus Christi is about $3.75 a gallon, and I remember back when Bush was president and gas was this high, a barrel of oil was selling for like $140. I don't understand why a barrel of oil is going for like $105 today, and our gas is still $3.75. Why is that?

RUSH: Speculators.

CALLER: Speculators. I mean it's like $30 difference on a barrel --

RUSH: Speculators. Well, the speculation price versus the raw goods price differential is much different this time around.

CALLER: Hmm.

RUSH: The guy that sets the gasoline price could just be taking advantage now, because everybody's been told gasoline prices are gonna be going up and so the guy that controls gas prices might have just said, "Okay, well, let's raise 'em 'cause people are expecting that to happen." I want to go back to this notion, sir, we may have already lost you, but I hope not. I don't mean on the phone, I mean the way you think. This notion, you've given me a challenge here. You've given me a real challenge, like one I gave my dad, he told me, when I was seven or eight years old. You're giving me a real challenge here to try to explain to people the fallacy in the claim that unpaid-for tax cuts is a legitimate economic entry item or premise. Unpaid-for tax cuts. See, to me, instinctively, that is communist talk. But if it's not instinctively communist or socialist or collectivelist to talk to you, I have to find a way to explain it to you so you'll understand it. And that's going to be a bit of a challenge. It's not gonna be hard. It's gonna be a challenge to do it convincingly, persuasively, because you're looking at it from the standpoint of government needs X-amount of dollars to run, and you're not making any judgment on it. I do.

I think half the money it takes is unnecessary and invalid and fallaciously spent. It's unnecessary. I don't think it takes $3.7 trillion to run this government. That's making it even more intricate, which I shouldn't be doing at this stage of the explanation, but I'm just trying to describe for you my position on this. See, I believe that all wealth is created by individuals working, you and I in what's called the private sector. Without us the government would have nothing, and yet the presumption is that we have what we have because government allows us to keep a certain percentage of what we make. If we've gotten to the point where a majority of people in this country think that it's more important for government to have what it wants with no concern for the consequences -- in other words, try it this way. They raise your taxes, and you say, "I can't afford any more. I mean you're taking disposable income away from me. You're taking money that I need to buy food." We're talking needs here, not wants. Well, how come the same doesn't apply for government? How come every tax cut the government has to pay for it? Why can't they do with less now and then? Why does a tax cut have to be paid for?

It's that kind of thinking that gets us $14 trillion as a national debt. Unpaid-for tax cuts? The old notion that we should not cut taxes unless somehow we can replace that revenue? Why can't government do with less? We know how many programs are redundant on child health, school nutrition, all of this. I mean it would boggle your mind the amount of money that's triple and quadruple spent on the same projects. The purpose here is to deemphasize the relevance and importance of you as an individual. You are to be subordinate to the government. The government's needs are to take total precedence over yours. That's not America. And the notion that they can never do with less, but that we have to on every whim they describe, why, it offends my sensibilities.

So when I hear some Marxist president start talking about the reason we have a $14 trillion debt or the reason we have a $1.9 trillion deficit is because of unpaid-for tax cuts to millionaires? No. That's not why we have a deficit. We have a deficit because of irresponsible spending on the part of people who work in Washington and they spend that money for a host of reasons, the least of which is your prosperity. They're spending money to buy votes. They're spending money to make people dependent. They are enforcing poverty on people. They are breaking up families under the pretense of compassion and concern and hoping to help people. They are destroying people's dignity by taking away the option of dreams and work and achievement and success. They are exploiting a natural tendency of some people to be lazy and shiftless and sit out there and do nothing but collect a check.

Quite simply, sir, the Democrat Party is using people, exploiting people for one reason, and it has nothing to do with having a desire that those people have a happy life. It's all about making sure those people have barely enough to get by and that all they've got comes from government, and that they know that the government providing it to 'em is the Democrat Party. Ergo, votes, year in, year out. I say after 50 years of this ultimate failure which destroys elements of the country and our people, it's time to try it a different way and to deemphasize the role of government in everybody's life. Why should your government stand in the way of your becoming prosperous? Why should the government be an obstacle to your prosperity? Why should we have a government that looks at your achievement as something to be punished by you having to pay higher taxes? It's not fair that you're not paying more. Why? Where did it get written in the great annals of humanity that the greatness of a country is defined by how many people it has barely getting by being provided for by government, because that equals compassion. Where did that get started?

Your president today basically defined the greatness of America as that. We didn't become great country 'til we started redistributing wealth. Whatever you want to call the program, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, AFDC, WIC, Pell grants, I don't care, it's all redistribution, it's all it is. I'm sorry, but that's not defined our greatness and it never will define greatness. That's been tried around the world, sir. It's been tried in Cuba. Is anything great down there? Tried in Soviet Union, Russia. Is anything great over there? ChiComs. The greatness that's occurring in the ChiCom circumstance happens to be to the extent that they are going capitalist in order to have any kind of a growing economy. I mean the Obama way has been tried. For as long as there have been human beings, who used to be monkeys walking the earth, it's been tried, and has never worked. Well, that was my concession to the Darwinists in the audience.

But it doesn't work and this theory that government's in trouble because of unpaid-for tax cuts is part of the recipe of that failure. And that is that the number one thing in a nation's existence is its government. It's not. Certainly not the way this nation was founded. You know what you need to do, you need to go to online Constitution forum that's el freebo that the Hillsdale people are putting on on April 16th, because the Constitution doesn't say anything about taxes. Well, there's an amendment in there that deals with some, but tax rates, that's all the US House of Representatives, tax bills originate there. In fact, there wasn't an income tax until the 13th Amendment. That's where it is. And the original income tax, sir, what was it? I'm gonna ballpark this, 1% on the top 1%. I mean it was tiny. It was minuscule. Anyway, I'm glad you called. I relish these opportunities.

The question I asked my dad was a religious question. I asked him how he was so certain that there was a heaven. And I'm seven or eight years old. Now, he had satisfied it himself. My father was a lawyer, but he was also, for all intents and purposes, a scholar of the Bible. And he was deep thinker about it. The concept of eternal life was something that captivated him and he was always searching for ways to convince people with humanly logic, above and beyond just having faith in the Bible, he was always searching for something that would convince him, sort of like Pascal's wager, although this was not his, but Blaise Pascal, the brilliant eighteenth century philosopher. Pascal's wager basically was, hey, if the Bible says there is an eternal life if you're a believer, it makes sense to believe. If there is no afterlife and you die you're not gonna know the difference, but if there is an afterlife and you don't believe you'll find out because you're gonna be in hell, so safe bet is to believe.

He taught Sunday school, he occasionally did sermons and so forth, so I asked him how he knew, how he was so confident, and he told me this story not when I was seven or eight, he told me later on when I was old enough to be able to understand it, and his answer was, "Well, son, you know, I believe in creation. I believe in a loving God." He went through all that. Gotta make a short version of it 'cause of time. He said, "I just don't believe a loving God would create beings who could conceive of, plan for, and imagine and have faith in such places if it weren't true. It would be the ultimate cruelty of a loving God."

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/04/12/brace-for-larger-deficits-as-lawmakers-rethink-health-care-laws-medicare-cuts/

If We Don't Raise the Debt Ceiling, Will the Apocalypse Really Occur?

RUSH: "On Feb. 4, 2010, when the House of Representatives voted to increase the legal limit on the national debt by another $1.9 trillion (lifting the limit from $12.394 trillion to $14.294 trillion), not one Republican voted for the increase."

It's amazing how this tracks. It's like I just said: If you go back to 2006, not one Democrat voted to raise the debt limit in 2006. Republicans ran the show then. One year ago, not one Republican voted to raise the debt ceiling when they didn't run the show, of course. Just a year ago, one year, the debt ceiling has gone up by $2 trillion. Now, "Then-Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R.-Va.) rose on the House floor that day and declared that it was 'beyond comprehension' and 'a travesty' to talk about raising the legal debt limit to $14.294 trillion.

"Last week, the Republican House leadership agreed to a deal with President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) to spend $3.7555 trillion in this fiscal year -- even though at the close of business Friday, as the deal was being struck, the Treasury reported that it could borrow only an additional $80.85 billion before hitting the $14.294-trillion debt limit Congress set last year." So the debt ceiling increase of last year, we're bumping up agin' it now -- against it. We need to raise it again.

"In the first six months of this fiscal year (Oct-March), according to the Treasury, the debt increased $708.492 billion. Even if you subtract $38.5 billion [of this deal] from that number ... the federal government would still be on a pace to increase the debt by about another $670 billion in the remaining six months of this fiscal year," just to put that $38.5 billion into further perspective. By the way, these numbers are from Terence Jeffrey in a piece he has at the Cybercast News Service.

"Simply put: To consummate the spending deal the Republican House leaders cut with Obama and Reid on Friday, the Republicans would need to lift the debt ceiling by hundreds of billions just to let the government borrow the money the Republicans have already agreed to let the government spend between now and Sept. 30. Back in February 2010, when the then-Democrat-controlled House of Representatives voted to lift the debt ceiling to $14.294 trillion, then-Minority Whip Cantor delivered a scathing speech against the measure.

"'It would be recklessly naive to go about our business in Washington pretending there won't be severe consequences for the mountains of debt we are piling up,' Cantor said on the House floor. 'Yet today it is evident that this kind of willful ignorance is sweeping across Washington. We are set to lift our Nation's debt burden to $14 trillion. I would ask my colleagues in this chamber if they know how many zeroes 14 trillion has,' said Cantor. 'I would ask the American people if they know how many zeroes are in 14 trillion. It is 14 trillion.

"'It is beyond comprehension to be talking about numbers this big. More precisely, the limit is 1, 4, 2, 9, 4, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0. It is a travesty,' said Cantor. 'The writing is on the wall. Congress needs to wake up and realize that the future of American prosperity is in dire straits, mortal danger," and he was right then! But if you go back to 2006 when the Republicans had control, it was the Democrats saying almost identical -- word for word -- what Cantor is saying here.

So what we've learned here is that the party out of power is always opposed to raising the debt limit, and they use the same arguments that the previous time that the previous time when another party was out of power used. It's just mind-boggling here. It's all about who's running the show -- and if you're not in charge, if you're not in control barbecue you're not the majority, you're gonna oppose raising the debt ceiling except we're gonna kick the can down the road. This is why Terence Jeffrey has written the piece. If you're just joining us, the Republicans are sending a signal out that they're not gonna fight the debt ceiling increase; that the Ryan budget deal, that really should be our area of focus. That's what they're saying.

From The Politico today: "Republicans are growing increasingly concerned about the impact a bruising fight over raising the nation's $14.29 trillion debt ceiling could have on U.S. financial markets. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has had conversations with top Wall Street executives, asking how close Congress could push to the debt limit deadline without sending interests rates soaring and causing stock prices to go lower, people familiar with the matter said. Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said Tuesday night that he was not aware of any such conversations." But the media is reporting that Wall Street execs are warning Boehner, "You better not fight this fight." So that's where we are.

RUSH: You know, folks, we're getting the same kind of hysteria about the need to raise the debt ceiling that we got about the government shutdown. The hysteria is the same as we got for TARP. "We better do this. If we don't do this, there's gonna be a whole collapse. Why, if we don't do this, the financial system of the world could come crumbling down and everything could end." Remember that? There's still unspent TARP money. And then the same thing with the stimulus bill, we had to do that right then. We had to bail out General Motors. All that stuff in the fall of 2008 had to be done right now. And we're getting the same kind of hysteria about the need to raise the debt ceiling. Washington knows how to do this. Why shouldn't they? They got what they wanted, every bit of it in 2008, playing us this way.

So the Democrats and their copyboys in the media are saying that it would be an apocalypse if the debt ceiling is not raised. Michele Bachmann was on Fox & Friends this morning. She pointed out that it would probably take six to seven months before the debt ceiling would force the government to shut down, if ever. And that's the bottom line. A genuine shutdown of the United States government isn't going to happen. It simply will not happen. Revenue would still be coming in. People are still working and paying taxes. Revenue is still coming in. The worst that would come out of it is that we would have to prioritize our spending. In fact, she pointed out it would be almost like a de facto balanced budget amendment, which would be a good thing. But we're getting the same kind of hysteria, just like, "Oh, we can't have a shutdown, oh, no, no, we gotta raise the debt ceiling." It's the same damn way, folks. It's the same damn procedure. It's the same strategery. It's the same promise of calamity, apocalypse. And it's not true.

There is not imminent disaster on the other side of failing to raise the debt limit. You see what's guiding all this is that which I believe is our biggest single problem today. Well, that's hard to really categorize. But if it's not the single biggest problem, it's very close. And that is the notion that not one measly thing in this country can happen unless the government is involved in it. That's destroying us. The notion that kids can't eat, that people can't learn, that products can't be manufactured, that services can't be performed, nothing can happen unless government is open and actively involved in it, and folks, that whole premise is fallacious, and yet it is destroying us.

What would happen if we don't raise the debt ceiling? Well, we couldn't borrow any more money. It's a good thing, right? If the United States government were a person or a family, would anybody loan 'em any money? Nope, just the sharks, just the predatory lenders out there. Wouldn't that force the government to finally make some real cuts, set some priorities, if it couldn't borrow any money? We keep hearing that government is like family. Family sits around the kitchen table, although I don't think families do that much anymore, families sit around the kitchen table, they pore over the monthly bills. Yeah, you can just see that, mom, dad, the 2.8 kids, the family dog, poring over the family bills. Do you do that with your daughters, Dawn, sit down and go over the bills with your daughters? I didn't think so. Yeah, okay, the college bills. But I mean the whole -- (interruption) no, you don't. At any rate, what would be so bad if the federal government couldn't borrow any money? (interruption) See, this is my whole point. "It would destroy the confidence."

The fastest way to destroy confidence in the United States is to have Obama succeed at everything he wants to do. We're gonna become a laughingstock. Obama wants to take this country precisely to where it has no respect around the country and around the world 'cause it isn't anything special. But we've been there, said that, done that. This whole notion here that any time the ruling class in Washington desperately wants something the same tactic is employed. If they don't get it, it is the apocalypse. It is an utter, unthinkable disaster. And in none of these cases has that been true, as it turns out. As I say, there's still TARP money that hasn't been spent. There's still stimulus money that hasn't been spent. Hell, folks -- heck, for those of you offended by hell -- some of the 38 and a half billion dollars in the budget cuts is simply money that hasn't been spent yet from previous budgets. It's not new cuts. There's all kinds of money that hasn't been spent.

Let's look at this realistically. You mean to tell me that this government cannot get along on a measly $14.3 trillion? We got a budget of $3.7, 3.9 trillion, we can't get by on that? This is absurd. We've lost all perspective. We've lost connection to reality here. A real debt limit seems to me to be exactly what we need here. And you know what I think the rest of the world would actually be happy that we are beginning to act like adults for once, where our debt is concerned. Well, look at the IMF. I'm not particularly fond of the IMF, but let's look at 'em anyway. They and everybody else are telling us that we need to get our house in order. Well, wouldn't it be a real cap on our borrowing, a big, important first step to getting our house in order? Folks, we've gotta resist this. We have to resist that there's a disaster in the next 24 hours. There's a disaster in the next month. The disaster is in the Oval Office. The disaster is gonna be making a speech here in about seven and a half minutes. The disaster is gonna be making a campaign speech on "winning the future" with tax increases.

Hendersonville, North Carolina. Hi, Curt. I'm glad you called. Welcome to the program.

CALLER: Hello, Rush. I appreciate you taking my call, and my question is regarding the debt ceiling, but before I ask that I just want to compliment and thank you for educating us and for keeping us informed. It's very difficult for the average barn animal to weed through the maze of misinformation, and I appreciate it.

RUSH: Appreciate that, sir, very much. Farm animals do, too.

CALLER: Well, the question I have for you is just before I actually clicked on your program, on the news I saw that there was some congressmen and senators that were saying, in essence, we are not going to up the debt limit until we vote or until we get a handle, and there is a bipartisan consensus that we must agree to spending that will be responsible and so on and so forth. Well, if that happens, then why do we need to increase the debt limit if those things have been accomplished? I mean that's not a rhetorical question I'm asking, I'm really serious. I don't understand. If they've already pre-agreed, said, all right, we realize that we can't spend more than we're taking in, da-da-da-da, but we still need to increase the debt limit? Well, what am I missing?

RUSH: I don't know what you think you heard, but nobody has agreed to stop spending, and nobody's agreed to spend anything less than what we're spending now. So I don't know what you think you heard. If you did hear that, they're lying to you.

RUSH: Let's return to the audio sound bites this morning in Washington. Eric Cantor, the majority leader for the Republicans in the House.

CANTOR: This speech is coming a full two months after the president's original budget proposal and speech to the nation at the State of the Union. You know, this is vintage Obama. He's been standing on the sidelines expecting the rest of us to make the tough decisions to lead this country.

RUSH: Yep, that's what he does. He sits around, lets other people do it, comes in at the end of the day and takes credit for it if he thinks there is credit to be taken. Now, there was an AP story, and we quoted from it widely yesterday. But there was this little nugget buried in there. "The Treasury Department reported Tuesday that the deficit already totals $829.4 billion through the first six months of the budget year -- a figure that until 2009 would have been the biggest ever for an entire year. For March alone, the government ran a deficit of $188 billion." The George W. Bush annual deficit in, I think 2005, was 160-some-odd billion. (interruption)

Oh, I know. They were howling like a bunch of werewolves in a Lon Chaney movie. They were just -- how to create the notion of an economic collapse. Unemployment was around 5%, too. So in one month Obama has given us a budget deficit larger than Bush's annual budget deficit. That is an astonishing fact, staggering the amount of debt that's been piled up just since Obama was immaculated, doubly so that the AP would print it there for one and all to see. That was kind of buried, as I see. It took highly trained, broadcast specialist talent and eyes to spot it -- and if there was a Republican in the White House it would have been the top news story of the week.

Paul Ryan was on with George Stephanopoulos, Good Morning America today. Stephanopoulos' question: "Do you accept what Secretary Geithner says, that it will be a financial catastrophe if the debt limit is not extended?"

RYAN: Default is not our option or strategy, but we also want to make sure is that, as this debt limit increases, which is based on past spending, we get something in place to address with future spending, spending cuts, spending control --

STEPHANOPOULOS: If it's not possible, you will still vote to make sure the country doesn't go into default?

RYAN: No, I think it is possible. I don't accept that premise of that question, which is: We need to have real spending cuts, real spending controls in combination with the debt limit increase -- and I don't accept a notion that that's not possible. I think it is.

RUSH: Yeah, great going, Paul Ryan. Question: "So you'll vote to make sure the country doesn't go into default, right?" It isn't going into default. We're not gonna go into default, just like we aren't gonna destroy the world's financial system in October 2008. Why would we go into default? Why should we go into default? You see how easy it is for these themes to attach themselves to everybody and just be accepted? Chuck Schumer yesterday in Washington on the Senate floor...

SCHUMER: The Ryan budget has all the wrong priorities. The House Republican budget puts the entire burden of reducing the deficit on senior citizens, students, and middle school families. At the same time it protects corporate subsidies for oil companies, lets waste at the Pentagon go untouched, and would give even more tax breaks to the millionaires amongst us. In short, the Ryan budget puts the middle class last instead of first. As a result, it will never pass the Senate.

RUSH: And there you have Senator Chuck-U Schumer of New York knocking down the Paul Ryan budget, which will be the focal point because the debt ceiling, apparently (if you're just joining us) the Republicans have decided they're not gonna try to take the Hill on the debt ceiling fight now. It's too iffy. We're gonna really focus on the Ryan budget. That's where we are at the latest.

RUSH: Mike in Columbia, South Carolina. Hi, sir. Welcome to the program.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Dittos for all you do.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: If the debt ceiling increase is so important to Obama and to the nation, as he would put it, and if the Ryan plan is so important to the GOP, as I think it is, why can not, why does not the GOP make the deal? You want the debt ceiling increase, fine, here's Ryan's budget. It's a twofer deal in a sense. You need this so bad? That's great. We're gonna ensure that the cap that we put in place in this new ceiling is adhered to through --

RUSH: Okay, fine.

CALLER: -- Paul Ryan's budget.

RUSH: Okay. Let me ask you a quick question. In all candor what makes you think, what have you seen lately that makes you think the Democrats want to compromise with the Republicans?

CALLER: I don't think they do, but I think they have to. The debt ceiling they're portraying and the media is portraying is having their backs against the wall, the nation is at risk --

RUSH: Yeah, but the Republicans are already out there today saying, "You know, we're not gonna fight 'em on the debt ceiling. We're gonna focus on the Ryan budget now. There's too much at stake here. We can't afford the US default." Republican leaders are using the same words that the Democrats are in talking about the danger here in not raising the debt ceiling. I think the Republicans have already caved on it.

CALLER: I don't think we've heard it from 'em officially, so let's give 'em a chance.

RUSH: All right, well, we'll see.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/flashback-cantor-beyond-comprehension-li

LA times: Spending cuts will affect nearly every federal agency (this is the sliver of a budget cut)

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-congress-spending-20110412,0,7757418.story

Since there are some links you may want to go back to from time-to-time, I am going to begin a list of them here. This will be a list to which I will add links each week.

Renew America:

http://www.renewamerica.com/

The Party of 1776:

http://www.partyof1776.net/

Climate Realists:

http://climaterealists.com/index.php

In case I did not list it before, Iowa Hawk (insightful economic blogging):

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/

American Legislative Exchange Council (Limited government, free markets and federalism):

http://www.alec.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home

Right Wing News Watch

http://www.rightwingnewswatch.com/

It is mostly libs who post here, but this way, you get their weird perspective on things political:

http://www.politico.com/arena/

The Right Scoop:

http://www.therightscoop.com/

Pro-Life Unity:

http://www.prolifeunity.com/

Christian Healthcare Ministries (an alternative to health insurance)

http://chministries.org/

Daniel Mitchell’s blog:

http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/

Capitalism Magazine

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/

The truth wins (mostly commentary on economics).

http://thetruthwins.com/

Conservative 21 (blog)

http://www.conservative21.com/index.cfm

Translating Jihad. What is broadcast in the Arabic is one thing; and how it is said in English is something entirely different:

http://translating-jihad.blogspot.com/

The Center for Responsive Politics:

http://www.opensecrets.org/

What if George Bush did that?

http://whatifgeorgebushdidthat.wordpress.com/

The Lonely Conservative (news and conservative opinion):

http://lonelyconservative.com/

The right weather underground (blog, with some emphasis upon the phony green agenda).

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/sebastianjer/

An article on the federal reserve:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/fed_reserve.htm

The Economic Collapse Blog:

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/

Albert Mohler’s blog, which is Christian and conservative:

http://www.albertmohler.com/

Readers begin a discussion, and other join in:

http://ricochet.com/

The Other Half of History (the history which is ignored in the modern classroom):

http://historyhalf.com/columns/

American History:

http://wallbuilders.com/

Citizen Tom (news and conservative commentary):

http://citizentom.com/

Pronk Palisades (recent news and editorial videos and links):

http://raymondpronk.wordpress.com/

The Right brothers (sort of newsy and commentary):

http://therightbrothers.posterous.com/

Freedom Fighter’s Journal (news and opinion articles):

http://ronbosoldier.blogspot.com/

Liberty’s Army (mostly economic and middle eastern revolutionary news right now):

http://www.libertysarmy.com/

News and opinion articles:

http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/

STORM’s official Revolutionary document:

http://www.leftspot.com/blog/files/docs/STORMSummation.pdf

Climate Depot’s 321-page 'Consensus Buster' Report:

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore

The Iowahawk, which is a blog, at times, heavy with stats, and at other times, it is hard to tell:

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/

Liberal collector of links and liberal news:

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/

Good conservative news blog:

http://a12iggymom.wordpress.com/

The radio patriot; a news repository and right-wing blog:

http://radiopatriot.wordpress.com/

Glenn Beck’s news page; almost everything is a video:

http://www.theblaze.com/

Conservative Girls are Hot:

http://girlontheright.com/

The Food Liberation Army (I am still unsure whether this is a put-on or not):

http://www.freeronald.org/en/fla/

Good news site—Buck’s Right:

http://www.bucksright.com/

In case you want to refer others to this; statistical comparison between gays and straights:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

Palestinian Media Watch:

http://palwatch.org/

Right Bias:

http://rightbias.com/

Red, White and Blue news:

http://redwhitebluenews.com/

The Right Scoop (lots of videos):

http://www.therightscoop.com/

Excellent news source:

http://home.myway.com/

Union refund? Really?

http://www.unionrefund.org/

The Right Reasons (news and opinion):

http://www.therightreasons.net/index.php

Meadia Research Center where the bias of mainstream news is exposed again and again.

http://www.mrc.org

Pundit and Pundette:

http://www.punditandpundette.com/

News directly from people in Egypt (called Broadcasting from Tahrir Square):

http://eltahrir.org/

Stand with Us:

http://www.standwithus.com/

A George Soros funded site:

http://thinkprogress.org/

Progressive media matters action network:

http://politicalcorrection.org/

The Jawa Report (there is some moderate emphasis upon Islam):

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/

Kids Aren’t Cars:

http://www.kidsarentcars.com/blog/

Stuff you probably did not know about greenhouse gases (this is a good link for friends):

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

The Top 100 Effects of Global Warming (I am fairly certain that this is serious; but it is really hard to tell). It is saying goodbye to French Wines, glaciers, guacamole, mixed nuts, French fries, baseball and Christmas trees and saying hello to cannibalistic polar bears, jellyfish attacks, giant squid attacks, more stray kittens, suffocating lemmings, burning cow poop and acidic oceans.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/09/climate_100.html

Comprehensive List of Tax Hikes in Obamacare (this includes individual health insurance costing as much as $695/month by 2016—which is not the only cost):

http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-list-tax-hikes-obamacare-a5758#

Tammy Bruce

http://tammybruce.com/

[California’s] Public Speakers blog:

http://pubsecrets.wordpress.com/

Flashpoint—California’s most significant political news:

http://www.flashreport.org/

The Publius Forum (more of a newscast than a blog; located in Chicago, I believe):

http://www.publiusforum.com/

Political Chips:

http://www.politicalchips.org/

Brits at their best:

http://www.britsattheirbest.com/

Political Affairs, which used to be called the Communist (in case you are interested in what the Democratic Par, I mean, the communist party is up to.

http://politicalaffairs.net/

Headlines, short news stories:

http://www.thehotjoints.com/

Christmas is evil (Muslim website):

http://xmasisevil.com/index2.php

Conservative blogger:

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/

Verum Serum

http://www.verumserum.com/

The Tax Professor Blog

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/

Moonbattery:

http://www.moonbattery.com/

Arbitrary Vote:

http://arbitraryvote.com/home

The Party of Know:

http://thepartyofknow.com/

Slap Blog

http://slapblog.com/

The latest news from Prison Planet:

http://prisonplanet.tv/

http://prisonplanet.tv/latest-news.html

Right Wing News:

http://rightwingnews.com/

The Frugal Café:

http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/

The Left Coast Rebel:

http://www.leftcoastrebel.com/

The Freedomist:

http://freedomist.com/

Greg Gutfeld’s website:

http://freedomist.com/

This is one of my favorite lists; this is a list of things which global warming causes (right now, it causes over 800 things—most of these are linked):

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

The U.K.’s number watch:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/number%20watch.htm

100 things we can say goodbye to (or, hello to) because of Global Warming (all of these are linked). They are very serious about these things, by the way:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/09/climate_100.html

If you are busy, and just want to read about the Top Ten things:

http://planetsave.com/2009/06/07/global-warming-effects-and-causes-a-top-10-list/

Observations of a blue state conservative:

http://lonelyconservative.com/

Thomas “Soul man” Sewell’s column archive:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell1.asp

Walter E. Williams column archive:

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/

Israpundit:

http://www.israpundit.com/

The Prairie Pundit:

http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/

Conservative Art:

http://secularstupidest.com/

Conservative Club of Houston:

http://www.cclub.org/welcome

Conservative blog, but with an eye to the culture and pop culture (there is a lot of stuff here):

http://hallofrecord.blogspot.com/

Conservative and pop culture blog (last I looked, there were some Beatles’ performances here):

http://thinkinboutstuff.com/thinkinboutstuff/nfblog/

Raging Elephants:

http://www.ragingelephants.org/

Gulag bound:

http://gulagbound.com/

Hyscience:

http://www.hyscience.com/

Politi Fi

http://politifi.com/

TEA Party Patriots:

http://teapartypatriots.org/

South Montgomery County Liberty Group:

http://sites.google.com/site/smclibertygroup/

Hole in the Hull:

http://www.holeinthehull.com/

National Council for Policy Analysis (ideas changing the world):

http://www.ncpa.org/

Ordering their pamphlets:

http://www.policypatriots.org/

Cartoon (Senator Meddler):

http://www.senatormedler.com/

Bear Witness:

http://bearwitness.info/default.aspx

http://bearwitness.info/BEARWITNESSMAIN.aspx (there are a million vids on this second page)

Right Change (facts presented in an entertaining manner):

http://www.rightchange.com/

Bias alert from the Media Research Center:

http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/archive.aspx

Excellent conservative blogger:

http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/

Send this link to the young people you know (try the debt quiz; I only got 6 out of 10 right):

http://ourtab.org/

Center for Responsive Politics:

http://www.opensecrets.org/

The Chamber Post (pro-business blog):

http://www.chamberpost.com/

Labor Pains (a pro-business, anti-union blog):

http://laborpains.org/

These people are after our children and after church goers as well:

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

Their opposition:

http://resistingthegreendragon.com/

The Doug Ross Journal (lots of pictures and cartoons):

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/

The WSJ Guide to Financial Reform

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703315404575250382363319878.html

The WSJ Guide to Obamacare:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574441193211542788.html

The WSJ Guide to Climate Change

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704007804574574101605007432.html

Video-heavy news source:

http://www.mediaite.com/

Political News:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/

Planet Gore; blogs about the environment:

http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore

The Patriot Post:

http://patriotpost.us/

PA Pundits, whose motto is, “the relentless pursuit of common sense” (I used many of the quotations which they gathered)

http://papundits.wordpress.com/

Index of (business) freedom, world rankings:

http://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2010/Index2010_ExecutiveHighlights.pdf

U.S. State economic freedom:

http://www.pacificresearch.org/docLib/20080909_Economic_Freedom_Index_2008.pdf

The All-American Blogger:

http://www.allamericanblogger.com/

The Right Scoop (with lots of vids):

http://www.therightscoop.com/

In case you have not seen it yet, Obsession:

http://www.therightscoop.com/saturday-cinema-obsession-radical-islams-war-against-the-west

Inside Islam; what a billion Muslims think:

http://vimeo.com/14121737

World Net Daily (News):

http://www.wnd.com/

Excellent blog with lots of cool vids:

http://benhoweblog.wordpress.com/

Black and Right:

http://www.black-and-right.com/

The Right Network:

http://rightnetwork.com/

Video on the Right Network:

http://rightnetwork.com/videos/860061517

The newly designed Democrat website:

http://www.democrats.org/

Composition of Congress 1855–2010:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.htm

Anti-American and pro-socialist, pro-Arabic:

http://www.zeropartypolitics.com/

The anti-Jihad resistence (which appears to be a set of links to similar websites):

http://www.antijihadresistance.com/

Seems to be fair and balanced with an international news approach:

http://ibnlive.in.com/

http://www.rawstory.com/

Black and Right dot com:

http://www.black-and-right.com/ (the future liberal of the day is quite humorous)

Mostly a liberal blogger, who says vicious things about most conservatives; and yet, says something sensible, e.g. posting many of the things which the healthcare bill does to us.

http://www.osborneink.com/

Conservative news site (many of the stories include videos):

http://www.theblaze.com/

http://nakedemperornews.com/

http://pajamasmedia.com/

Muslim hope:

http://www.muslimhope.com/index.html

Anti-Obama sites:

http://howobamagotelected.com/

http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/

http://www.exposeobama.com/

International news, mostly about Israel and the Middle East:

http://www.haaretz.com/

http://www.jpost.com/

News headlines sites (with links):

http://drudgereport.com/

http://www.thedeadpelican.com/

Business blog and news:

http://www.bizzyblog.com/

And I have begun to sort out these links:

News and Opinions

Conservative News/Opinion Sites

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/

Sweetness and Light

http://sweetness-light.com/

Flopping Aces:

http://www.floppingaces.net/

News busters:

http://newsbusters.org/

Right wing news:

http://rightwingnews.com/

CNS News:

http://www.cnsnews.com/

Pajamas Media:

http://pajamasmedia.com/

Right Wing News:

http://rightwingnews.com/

Scared Monkeys (somewhat of a conservative newsy site):

http://scaredmonkeys.com/

Conservative News Source:

http://www.newsrealblog.com/

David’ Horowitz’s NewsReal:

http://www.newsrealblog.com/

Pamela Geller’s conservative website:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/

The news sites and the alternative news media:

http://drudgereport.com/

http://www.hallindsey.com/

http://reason.com/

Andrew Breithbart’s websites:

http://biggovernment.breitbart.com/

Conservative Websites:

http://www.theodoresworld.net/

http://conservalinked.com/

http://www.moonbattery.com/

http://www.rockiesghostriders.com/

www.coalitionoftheswilling.net

http://shortforordinary.com/

A conservative worldview:

http://www.divineviewpoint.com/sane/

http://www.theamericanright.com/forums/index.php

http://politipage.com/

Liberal News Sites

Democrat/Liberal news site:

http://intoxination.net/

News

CNS News:

http://www.cnsnews.com/home

News Organization (I mention them because I have seen 2 honest stories on their website, which shocked and surprised me):

http://www.ocregister.com/

Business News/Economy News

Investors Business Daily:

http://www.investors.com/

IBD editorials:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/IBDEditorials.aspx

Great business and political news:

www.wsj.com

www.businessinsider.com

Quick News

Even though this group leans left, if you need to know what happened each day, and you are a busy person, here is where you can find the day’s news given in 100 seconds:

http://www.youtube.com/user/tpmtv

Republican

Back to the basics for the Republican party:

http://www.republicanbasics.com/

Republican Stop Obamacare site:

http://www.nrcc.org/codered/main.php

North Suburban Republican Forum:

http://www.northsuburbanrepublicanforum.org/

Politics

You Decide Politics (it appears conservative to me):

http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/

The Left

From the left:

http://www.loonwatch.com/

Far left websites:

www.dailykos.com

Weatherman Underground 1969 “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.”

http://www.archive.org/details/YouDontNeedAWeathermanToKnowWhichWayTheWindBlows_925 (PDF, Kindle and other formats)

http://www.antiauthoritarian.net/sds_wuo/weather/weatherman_document.txt (Simple online text)

Insane, leftist blogs:

http://teabaggersrcoming.blogspot.com/

http://poorsquinky.com/politics/all.html

Media

Media Research Center

http://www.mrc.org/public/default.aspx

Conservative Blogs

Mike’s America

http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/

Dick Morris:

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/

David Limbaugh (great columns this week)

http://davidlimbaugh.com/

Texas Fred (blog and news):

http://texasfred.net/

Conservative Blogs:

http://atimetochoose.wordpress.com/

http://americanelephant.com/

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/*/index

The top 100 conservative sites:

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/dbkpreport/2010/02/the-conservative-100-most-popular-conservative-sites-feb-14-2010/

Sensible blogger Burt Folsom:

http://www.burtfolsom.com/

Janine Turner’s website (I’m serious; and the website is serious too). This is if you have an interest in real American history:

http://constitutingamerica.org/

Conservative news/opinion site:

http://www.humanevents.com/

The Left Coast Rebel:

http://www.leftcoastrebel.com/

Good conservative blogs:

http://tammybruce.com/

http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/

http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/

http://makenolaw.org/ (the Free Speech blog)

http://www.baltimorereporter.com/

http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/

www.rightofanation.com

The Romantic Poet’s Webblog:

http://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/

Brain Shavings (common sense from the Buckeye State):

http://brainshavings.com/

Green Hell blog:

http://greenhellblog.com/

Daniel Hannan’s blog:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/danielhannan/

Conservative blog:

http://wyblog.us/blog/

Richard O’Leary’s websites:

www.letfreedomwork.com

www.freedomtaskforce.com

http://www.eccentrix.com/members/beacon/

Freedom Works:

http://www.freedomworks.org/

Yankee Phil’s Blogspot:

http://yankeephil.blogspot.com/

Excellent list of Blogs on the bottom, right-hand side of this page:

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/

Babes

And simply because I like cute, intelligent babes:

http://alisonrosen.com/

Liberty Chick:

http://libertychick.com/

Dee Dee’s political blog:

http://somosrepublicans.com/author/deedee/

The Latina Freedom Fighter:

http://www.youtube.com/user/LatinaFreedomFighter

Ann Althouse ("Crusty conservative coating, creamy hippie love chick center.")

http://althouse.blogspot.com/

Judith Miller is one of the moderate and fairly level-headed voices for FoxNews:

http://www.judithmiller.com/

http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/

A mixed bag of blogs and news sites

Left and right opinions with an international flair:

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/

This is an odd blog; conservativism, bikinis and whatever else posted by either a P.I. or the brother of a P.I.:

http://pibillwarner.wordpress.com/

More out-there blogs and sites

Angry White Dude (okay, maybe we conservatives are angry?):

http://angrywhitedude.com/

Mofo Politics (a very anti-Obama site):

http://www.mofopolitics.com/

Info Wars, because there is a war on for your mind (this site may be a little crazy??):

http://www.infowars.com/

The Magic Negro Watch (this is peppered with obscenities and angry conservative rhetoric):

http://magicnegrowatch.blogspot.com/

Okay, maybe this guy is racist:

http://angrywhitedude.com/

Media

Glenn Beck’s shows online:

http://www.watchglennbeck.com/

News busted all shows:

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/search.aspx?q=newsbusted&t=videos

Joe Dan Media (great vids and music):

http://www.youtube.com/user/JoeDanMedia

The Patriot’s Network (important videos; the latest):

http://patriotsnetwork.com/

PolitiZoid on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/user/politizoid

Reason TV

http://reason.tv/

This guy posts some excellent vids:

http://www.youtube.com/user/PaulWilliamsWorld

HipHop Republicans:

http://www.hiphoprepublican.blogspot.com/

Topics

(alphabetical order)

Bailouts

Bailout recipients:

http://bailout.propublica.org/main/list/index

Eye on the bailout (this is fantastic!):

http://bailout.propublica.org/

The bailout map:

http://bailout.propublica.org/main/map/index

From:

http://www.propublica.org/

Border

Do you want to watch what is happening on our border? These are actual videos of observations cams along the border:

http://secureborderintel.org/

http://borderinvasionpics.com/

Secure the Border:

http://securetheborder.org/

Capitalism

Liberty Works (conservative, economic site):

http://libertyworks.com/

Capitalism Magazine:

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/

Communism

45 Goals of Communists in order to take over the United States (circa 1963):

http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm

How this correlates to the goals of the ACLU:

http://dianedew.com/aclu.htm

Congress

No matter what your political stripe, you will like this; evaluate your Congressman or Senator on the issues:

http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm

http://www.cagw.org/government-affairs/ratings/2008/ratings-database.html

http://www.cagw.org/reports/pig-book/2009/pork-database.html

Corrupt Media

The Economy/Economics

Bush “Tax Cut” myths and fallacies:

http://libertyworks.com/category/obamanomics/bush-tax-cut-myths-fallacies/

A debt clock and a lot of articles on the debt:

http://defeatthedebt.com/

Recovery (dot) gov (where our money is being spent):

http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx

A collection of articles by Michelle Malkin about Obama’s war against jobs:

http://michellemalkin.com/category/politics/obama-jobs-death-toll/

AC/DC economics (start with the oldest lessons first; economics in 60 second bites):

http://www.youtube.com/user/ACDCLeadership#p/a

Economist and talk show host Walter E. Williams:

http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/

The conservative plan to get us out of this financial mess:

www.Americanroadmap.org

The Freedom Project (most a conservative news and opinion site which appears to concentrate on matters financial)

http://www.freedomproject.org/

Bankrupting America, with great videos and maps:

http://www.bankruptingamerica.org/

This appears to be a daily pork report, apparently as pork in Washington bills is discovered, it gets posted at Tom Coburg’s website:

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=WashingtonWaste

Weekly poll, asking you to identify what we ought to cut in governmental spending:

http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/

Global Warming/Climate Change

This is an interesting site; it seems to be devoted to the debate of climate change:

http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/

Global Warming headlines:

http://www.dericalorraine.com/

Dr. Roy Spencer on climate change:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Not Evil, Just Wrong video on Global Warming

http://noteviljustwrong.com/

http://www.letfreedomwork.com/

http://www.taskforcefreedom.com/council.htm

Global Warming Hoax:

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

Global Warming Site:

http://www.climatedepot.com/

Global Warming sites:

http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/

35 inconvenient truths about Al Gore’s film:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5J7JNfLYco

http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/trailer

Wall Street Journal’s articles on Climate Change:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704007804574574101605007432.html

Michael Crichton on global warming as a religion:

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html

This man questions global warming:

http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/

Healthcare

This is indispensable: the Wall Street Journal’s guide to Obama-care (all of their pertinent articles arranged by date—send one a day to your liberal friends):

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574441193211542788.html

Republican healthcare plan:

http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare

Health Care:

http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/

Betsy McCaughey’s Health Care Site:

http://www.defendyourhealthcare.us/home.html

Obamacare Watch:

http://www.obamacarewatch.org/

This looks to be a good source of information on the health care bill (s):

http://joinpatientsfirst.com/

Obamacare class action suit (as of today, joining in on the suit costs you whatever you want to donate, if I understand the form correctly):

http://www.van4congress.org/contact/obamacare-class-action/

Islam

Islam:

www.thereligionofpeace.com

Jihad Watch

http://www.jihadwatch.org/

Answering Muslims (a Christian site):

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/

Muslim demographics: